You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
MA and shipping
- Thread starter VLM
- Start date
Jayson Cohen
Jayson Cohen
I’ve not heard that. It would be fabulous.
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
Me, neither, and I just looked for it. The recent news out of MA is the ability for restaurants to sell/deliver cocktails.
Wine-Searcher has this entry:
Will ship wine to the following states: AK, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IN, KS, LA, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY.
Vague shipping policy at Gordon's website:
[shrug]
Loading…
www.wine-searcher.com
Will ship wine to the following states: AK, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IN, KS, LA, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MT, NC, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA, WI, WV, WY.
Vague shipping policy at Gordon's website:
Loading…
www.gordonswine.com
[shrug]
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
The Gordon's policy is the usual whistling in the dark you see in a lot of places: *they* don't ship anything, *you* have to retain an agent to pack up your stuff and send it.
I doubt anyone is fooled but maybe it stands up in court.
I doubt anyone is fooled but maybe it stands up in court.
originally posted by twlim:
Gordon's definitely ships OOS. I've heard from trade sources that they now do so openly and officially but am not a client myself.
That would be fantastic. I've heard here and via private comms that it is still illegal for MA stores to ship so this bit of info is really helpful, thanks.
Normally, I'd just let it go but they have a wine I can't find anywhere else and in quantity.
The justification I've heard, FWIW, is that a Federal court ruled several years ago that the state law on interstate shipping was invalid. I'm told, but have not researched this, that the judgment in question is Family Winemaker of California v Jenkins, judgement issued in 2008, affirmed on appeal in 2010. The justification cited was the Granholm v Heald Supreme Court decision.
Ken Schramm
Ken Schramm
I have been following interstate shipping by retailers pretty closely. The follow on to Granholm v. Heald and the Tennessee WSRA v Thomas decisions has been Circuit Courts issuing conflicting decisions on the legality of states prohibiting out-of-state retailers from shipping while allowing in-state retailers to ship. It boils down to whether the Commerce Clause trumps the 21st Amendment, or the other way around.
Lebamoff v. Whitmer is now filed with the US Supreme Court. It would (will?) decide the issue conclusively, if they take it on. The Petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on July 20, and the response is due August 19. The Court does seem inclined to take on cases when Circuit Courts have left the law regionally inconsistent or opaque. I suspect we may be hearing this case come October.
As a betting man, I am putting my money on 1) them taking the case and 2) the Commerce Clause. We'll find out if this is going to be heard in a matter of days.
We live in interesting times.
Lebamoff v. Whitmer is now filed with the US Supreme Court. It would (will?) decide the issue conclusively, if they take it on. The Petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on July 20, and the response is due August 19. The Court does seem inclined to take on cases when Circuit Courts have left the law regionally inconsistent or opaque. I suspect we may be hearing this case come October.
As a betting man, I am putting my money on 1) them taking the case and 2) the Commerce Clause. We'll find out if this is going to be heard in a matter of days.
We live in interesting times.
So if you win your bet, Ken - would this immediately cause all states to allow interstate shipping, or would there have to be individual challenges in each state? And if the latter, is it likely that the cases will drag, or will the fact of the (hypothetical) Supreme Court ruling cause the states' attorneys to just offer no contest?
Ken Schramm
Ken Schramm
If they decline to hear the case, the hypothetical outcomes are pretty numerous. There is no predicting how far this will get strung out. Distributors are protecting their cash cow. They have shown no inclination to stop dragging this along.
If the Court chooses to hear the case, one eventuality is that the SC says the Commerce Clause prevails, and this would force all of the the individual states to work out how out of state retailers would comply with their taxation and licensing issues. I suspect that is how it will fall. It won't be immediate, but it will not be something that can be challenged continuously. A ruling would clarify sufficiently to insure that none of the Circuits would continue pulling the stuff that the Second, Sixth and Eighth have.
If 21st prevails, I'd say that states with a reciprocal shipping arrangement would keep it in place, and the states like MI that are protecting their three tier system will be allowed to continue to prohibit the trade. It would be messy and convoluted, but the justices get to decide whatever they want. I don't know how that would resolve the differences between the conflicting Circuit Court rulings, either. Maybe they could fashion something (?).
I see that as improbable, with the court's record on protecting commerce. Given the fact that MI has effectively gutted the parts of the three tier system that has been used to justify keeping these bans in place, I don't see how the 21st can prevail. If the three tier system is what the state uses to protect consumers' health, for example, as the Sixth's ruling seems to claim, how can the state also legally permit its licensed winemakers, brewers and distillers to sell directly to consumers, and winemakers and brewers to self distribute to retailers?
That state of affairs puts everyone out of state in the same compromised commerce condition as Granholm v Heald. It will be very hard, in light of current practice, to say that a ban on Internet sales does not amount to economic protectionism, which the Court has frowned on hard for the last 50 years. The justifications become sufficiently contortionist for the justices to flay them in orals.
I would see the most likely answer to, "will the fact of the (hypothetical) Supreme Court ruling cause the states' attorneys to just offer no contest?" be the same as the state's responses to Granholm v. Heald. They have to do something, either legislatively or administratively, and the state AGs are smart enough to know what will be compliant.
If the Court chooses to hear the case, one eventuality is that the SC says the Commerce Clause prevails, and this would force all of the the individual states to work out how out of state retailers would comply with their taxation and licensing issues. I suspect that is how it will fall. It won't be immediate, but it will not be something that can be challenged continuously. A ruling would clarify sufficiently to insure that none of the Circuits would continue pulling the stuff that the Second, Sixth and Eighth have.
If 21st prevails, I'd say that states with a reciprocal shipping arrangement would keep it in place, and the states like MI that are protecting their three tier system will be allowed to continue to prohibit the trade. It would be messy and convoluted, but the justices get to decide whatever they want. I don't know how that would resolve the differences between the conflicting Circuit Court rulings, either. Maybe they could fashion something (?).
I see that as improbable, with the court's record on protecting commerce. Given the fact that MI has effectively gutted the parts of the three tier system that has been used to justify keeping these bans in place, I don't see how the 21st can prevail. If the three tier system is what the state uses to protect consumers' health, for example, as the Sixth's ruling seems to claim, how can the state also legally permit its licensed winemakers, brewers and distillers to sell directly to consumers, and winemakers and brewers to self distribute to retailers?
That state of affairs puts everyone out of state in the same compromised commerce condition as Granholm v Heald. It will be very hard, in light of current practice, to say that a ban on Internet sales does not amount to economic protectionism, which the Court has frowned on hard for the last 50 years. The justifications become sufficiently contortionist for the justices to flay them in orals.
I would see the most likely answer to, "will the fact of the (hypothetical) Supreme Court ruling cause the states' attorneys to just offer no contest?" be the same as the state's responses to Granholm v. Heald. They have to do something, either legislatively or administratively, and the state AGs are smart enough to know what will be compliant.
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
Here is a better link to the docket.
It seems unreasonable that a Shopper in State A has to pay tax in State A when the business was actually transacted at a Store in State B. It seems much more reasonable to pay State B's tax.
That would get ugly fast, right?: Every shop everywhere has to grok 50 separate tax codes, collect the money, and file them (don't forget quarterly estimateds!).originally posted by Ken Schramm:
If the Court chooses to hear the case, one eventuality is that the SC says the Commerce Clause prevails, and this would force all of the the individual states to work out how out of state retailers would comply with their taxation and licensing issues.
It seems unreasonable that a Shopper in State A has to pay tax in State A when the business was actually transacted at a Store in State B. It seems much more reasonable to pay State B's tax.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
Here is a better link to the docket.
That would get ugly fast, right?: Every shop everywhere has to grok 50 separate tax codes, collect the money, and file them (don't forget quarterly estimateds!).originally posted by Ken Schramm:
If the Court chooses to hear the case, one eventuality is that the SC says the Commerce Clause prevails, and this would force all of the the individual states to work out how out of state retailers would comply with their taxation and licensing issues.
It seems unreasonable that a Shopper in State A has to pay tax in State A when the business was actually transacted at a Store in State B. It seems much more reasonable to pay State B's tax.
Right now, those wine stores that collect tax do collect tax according to the state they are in. Amazon, I believe, sorts for each state, but I agree with Jeff that it isn't likely that every small wine store will have the resources to do what Amazon does.
Ken Schramm
Ken Schramm
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
It seems unreasonable that a Shopper in State A has to pay tax in State A when the business was actually transacted at a Store in State B. It seems much more reasonable to pay State B's tax.
True, but that is how wineries selling into other states have to do it, as do many other online retailers. There are third party systems like ShipCompliant that simplify the process considerably. That is unlikely to be undone by the SC.
Jayson Cohen
Jayson Cohen
I am loathe to comment in public on the topic of the Michigan case although I’m itching to do so as it’s possible my firm becomes involved, even if not directly, by amicus.
But I will say it’s very interesting that Michigan chose not to oppose cert. It suggests the state wants greater certainty one way or the other and doesn’t care whether that arises from denial of cert or grant and putting this issue to rest.
But I will say it’s very interesting that Michigan chose not to oppose cert. It suggests the state wants greater certainty one way or the other and doesn’t care whether that arises from denial of cert or grant and putting this issue to rest.
Ken Schramm
Ken Schramm
I will try not to get too political here, but some politics is inevitable.
In 2018, Michigan went from having a male Republican Governor, SoS and AG to having women Dems in all of those jobs. My area also went from having R males as State Rep and Senator to having D women in both those offices. My new State Senator is Mallory McMorrow, who authored SB 819, which would make interstate retail wine shipping legal in MI, if it made it out of the R-controlled Senate committee in which it is being moth-balled. I have a feeling that Whitmer and the AG want this over with and are giving McMorrow some tacit solidarity and support by offering up token opposition and really not putting their hearts into it. Witness your point, Jayson.
In 2018, Michigan went from having a male Republican Governor, SoS and AG to having women Dems in all of those jobs. My area also went from having R males as State Rep and Senator to having D women in both those offices. My new State Senator is Mallory McMorrow, who authored SB 819, which would make interstate retail wine shipping legal in MI, if it made it out of the R-controlled Senate committee in which it is being moth-balled. I have a feeling that Whitmer and the AG want this over with and are giving McMorrow some tacit solidarity and support by offering up token opposition and really not putting their hearts into it. Witness your point, Jayson.
originally posted by Ken Schramm:
I will try not to get too political here, but some politics is inevitable.
In 2018, Michigan went from having a male Republican Governor, SoS and AG to having women Dems in all of those jobs. My area also went from having R males as State Rep and Senator to having D women in both those offices. My new State Senator is Mallory McMorrow, who authored SB 819, which would make interstate retail wine shipping legal in MI, if it made it out of the R-controlled Senate committee in which it is being moth-balled. I have a feeling that Whitmer and the AG want this over with and are giving McMorrow some tacit solidarity and support by offering up token opposition and really not putting their hearts into it. Witness your point, Jayson.
Not political, factual. Republicans are only for "free trade" if it means lower (or no) taxes on capital or wealth. They stop being for free trade when it comes to donors industries.
This is political. There are two kinds of Republican: venal and stupid. If there's a third sort, I'd love to know.
originally posted by VLM:
This is political. There are two kinds of Republican: venal and stupid. If there's a third sort, I'd love to know.
I'm with you on all the policy matters being discussed in the active threads, but this is wrong.
Unfortunately our two party system makes it very difficult to abandon your side's candidate even when highly flawed. A colleague of mine from Tufts just did a small study on this. And it's just as true for Democrats as it is for Republicans.
Point being, the current Republican leadership has lots of flaws. But that doesn't make all Republicans venal or stupid!
originally posted by Rahsaan:
originally posted by VLM:
This is political. There are two kinds of Republican: venal and stupid. If there's a third sort, I'd love to know.
I'm with you on all the policy matters being discussed in the active threads, but this is wrong.
Unfortunately our two party system makes it very difficult to abandon your side's candidate even when highly flawed. A colleague of mine from Tufts just did a small study on this. And it's just as true for Democrats as it is for Republicans.
Point being, the current Republican leadership has lots of flaws. But that doesn't make all Republicans venal or stupid!
I guess there are the just plain racist ones, but I put them in the stupid box for simplicity.
IME, there is one set that is anti-data, anti-science, anti-expertise because it doesn't let them do what they want. Then there are people that know better but go along because the Republican policies ALWAYS result in siphoning more and more capital and wealth to those that have already accumulated a lot. Sort of like the formation of planets. I also put the folks that do their bidding, thinking that they could be a planet in the stupid box.
What do you make of the studies that show different fMRI patterns for self-labeled "conservatives" versus "liberals/progressives"? That is the former accesses regions mostly associated with emotion and the latter with reason.